A famine of hearing the word of the LORD (Pt. 4)

Since this is taking so much time I doubt I'll get through the whole of Psalm 91 in my project to show the falseness of the modern Bibles just in this tiny portion of the scriptures, the unconscionable attack on the word of God that the modern Bible versions really are. I've been moved to this kind of language in denunciation of them, by the way, because of this little project. Getting into the actual differences between the modern texts and the KJV shows the sheer mindless destructiveness of the revisions in a way all the scholarly discussions don't. You can see right before your eyes that there is no rational foundation for the changes that were made, just in the first few verses of Psalm 91.

In most of the differences I've highlighted, the revisers seem to be making change for change's sake, the exact opposite of what the original revisers, Westcott and Hort, were commissioned to do - make only compellingly necessary changes for the sake of improving comprehension. On the contrary, the whimsical changes that dot the various revisions show that not only W&H but all the revisers that followed them in multiplying versions seem merely to want to throw a cloud of confusion over the word of God.

There can be only one spiritual source of such an undertaking.

I'll do at least another verse of Psalm 91, verse 4:

KJV: He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

NKJV: He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler.

RSV: he will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler.

NASB: He will cover you with his pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark.

NIV: He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

The more I do this the madder I get.

Even in the very popular Psalm 91, which you'd think any revisers would want to preserve at the very least for the sake of those who memorize scripture (unless of course there is an absolutely imperative compelling reason for a change), the NKJV, which SEEMS to be dedicated to preserving the KJV more than all the others, makes the unjustifiable change from "noisome" to "perilous" in verse 3, and now makes in verse 4 the unjustifiable change from "under his wings shalt thou trust" to "under His wings you shall take refuge." In this alteration the NKJV is following the modern revisions instead of the KJV.

Here is another of those places where the revisers seem to have gone out of their way to choose a minority reading. Strong's gives both definitions, trust and take refuge, for the underlying Hebrew term, and shows that the Hebrew term occurs 37 times in the Hebrew Bible and is translated as "trust" in the KJV in 35 of those places. 35 out of 37. But the revisers decided to substitute "take refuge" for this obviously preferred reading of the KJV. Why? Don't they seem to be making changes for change's sake, simply to distance today's Bible as far as possible from the KJV, simply to add confusion to doubt? The more of these bogus Bibles are out there circulating among God's people, the more they have succeeded in obfuscating God's word and disunifying the flock.

Here's Strong's, from the Blue Letter Bible site:
1) (Qal) to seek refuge, flee for protection
a) to put trust in (God), confide or hope in (God) (fig.)
AV — to trust 35, to make a refuge 1, have hope 1

The RSV has you finding refuge instead of taking refuge; the NASB has you seeking refuge rather than taking it or finding it, and on this one the NIV agrees with the RSV that you will find it.

They all agree in their shared mission to destroy the word of God that the KJV has it wrong in saying thou shalt trust, but they don't even want to preserve a semblance of unity among themselves about whether one takes refuge, seeks refuge or finds refuge. Don't you get the impression that the honored revisers just sat around asking themselves, "Let's see, how can we introduce a little change here that looks plausible enough to pass with the unwary reader, while throwing the whole thing into doubt in such a way that nobody will be the wiser?"

Oh, but the masterpiece of change in this verse is from "feathers" to "PINIONS!" Yikes!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pinion
pin·ion 1
1. The wing of a bird.
2. The outer rear edge of the wing of a bird, containing the primary feathers.
3. A primary feather of a bird.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pinions
1: the terminal section of a bird's wing including the carpus, metacarpus, and phalanges; broadly : wing2: feather, quill; also : flight feathers
— pin·ioned \-yənd\ adjective

Yoo hoo, hey guys! Wasn't the idea to IMPROVE THE READABILITY of the Bible for the millions? What sense could it possibly make to go from the eminently readable "feathers" to the peculiarly technical "pinions?"

Oh, SURELY, my readers (I pray the Lord will bring me a few), we see here the nefarious plot of the revisers as naked as it's going to get. Can't you just picture the guy who came up with this cracking up over his clever coup? Hee hee hee, he's going, and his band of pranksters with him.

Then we've got the NASB replacing "buckler" with "bulwark" and the NIV replacing it with "rampart." A buckler is a small shield, a bulwark is a fortification or embankment, a rampart is another synonym for bulwark or fortification. It appears the NIV just took the NASB's "bulwark" and produced another variation on the theme, or vice versa, depending on which translation came first. Change for change's sake.

Well, there is a stretch of the term that is possible, from shield to surround to fortification, and God IS a bulwark, but what reason can there be to make that the meaning of the word in this case? I can't see any reason except a perverse desire to injure the KJV. They seem to be sprinkling changes everywhere that are justified only by the very flimsiest seeming plausibility, anything to corrupt God's word and hurt His people. This may not be their conscious intention, but if it is not, then it shows a cavalier attitude toward the text that is hardly any better.

Then we've got the RSV, NASB and NIV all substituting "faithfulness" for "truth!" In this case if you check the Concordance you will find that there are 117 places the Hebrew term is translated truth, true or truly in the KJV, out of 128 occurrences of the Hebrew term in the entire Bible, only 3 of which have faithful or faithfully. Again, the revisers are going out of their way to find the least acceptable rendering of the Hebrew while keeping enough thin plausibility to fool the nonexpert. ANYTHING to contradict the KJV! Anything will do!

For some reason, here as in other places I've noticed, the NIV prefers the KJV's reading of a word, in this case "feathers" while it indulges in the other mutilating corrections of its kin. Anything to confuse, to keep the potential critic unsettled?

I'm going to end this project for now. If anyone wants to take up the project from this verse on, I think you will continue to find small changes that have no justification except to obfuscate and confuse.